Some agreement 4-5 years ago? Can't be that meaningful or they would have either fought by now or been made to fight. Or is this one of Tysons gentleman/I'll throw a few quid your way for nothing agreements? Apparently, according to this forum, Tyson "can't get up" for opponents that aren't belt holders or very dangerous. So why bother with Charr? Usyk would have had many months out too if he fights Tyson next year. There's zero reason to fight Charr. AJ or Usyk next. Failing that, keep it in house and fight Joyce.
I agree - I don’t think there’s anyone on this forum that wants to see Charr and I haven’t seen anyone actually defend it. The only acceptable defence would be if there was literally 0 other options and Fury needed to keep busy. It’s a completely unacceptable fight for someone who many consider to be the number 1 HW. I don’t think it’s commercially viable either - it’ll bomb if PPV and I can’t see it selling out a stadium. That should prevent broadcasters and promoters from even considering it. We have no idea about any obligations to Charr, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s some sort of ‘gentleman’s agreement’ ala Fury’s supposed promise to fight Chisora a 3rd time.
1) I've seen people on here defend it, like you, with "well if he must keep busy...". This isn't 1960. Stay in the gym, let the promoters promote, and stop moaning. He isn't a 14-0 novice, so he doesn't need tick overs. Well give Charr some step-aside money then. Absolutely zero upside for anyone, especially Tyson and his camp, to take this fight.
I haven’t defended a Charr fight, unless you can remind me. The only feasible acceptable situation would be if there were literally 0 other opponents better than Charr - which isn’t the case.
You're defending him now! Why should there even be a scenario where Charr is the only feasible opponent? Just train and stay in the gym other than this nonsense.
i agree. it should be standardized. once the essential terms are agreed, a contract should be created to a set standard. and signed. boxing needs to be legitimate business/sport and not a circus.
It’s not a defence - unless you class saying you’d prefer to see a boxer fight someone than not at all in a totally unfeasible scenario is a defence? I think you just like the idea of people ardently defending Fury at every turn.. but it doesn’t really seem to exist like you believe/want it to.
yes there are a few like that here. anyone who wouldn't want to join an anti-Fury lynch mob is a " Fury fangirl apologist hero worshipper " according to them
It’s just stupid. There can be some really good debate on here, but @BEATDOWNZ / @Brixton Bomber hates Fury so much that he lets it totally overshadow any decent points he might make. Very tiresome.
